Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions

I would like everyone to use this thread for several goals. I would like us all to come to some general agreement on how we want to determine consensus on Requests going forward. Whether this means we stick to the idea of counting support versus opposition votes, or whether this means we somehow objectively weigh each vote on the merits of its arguments, I don't know. If we decide to stick with voting, then we should at the very least come to an agreement on whether or not votes can be struck out, and on what grounds, and following which procedures. We should also determine what margin of support needs to be attained before a request can be successful. This is going to be a difficult matter to solve, so I emphasize patience and creative ideas.

 

 

Second, I think the whole process might go smoother if we implement some sort of commentary period ''before'' the clock on voting begins. To those who think that the RfA process as it is is already too slow... I believe that having a period to work out issues with a candidate before the voting begins might be able to alleviate a lot of the problems that have come up. Here's what I'm thinking:

 

<blockquote>Strength of argument is more important than the number of votes.</blockquote>

By this extension it would seem right to abide by this by emphasising reasoning in the voting process and ultimately have RfA mediated by a <u>neutral</u> bureaucrat. I'd say for an RfA/B to pass, we stick with between 66% (two-thirds) to maybe 70% of the support vote is needed.

 

 

:::I'm also not crazy about the idea of limiting nominations. My main concerns are that a self-nomination could potentially be viewed as less "worthy" of adminship, since 'a user with admin potential would obviously be nominated by an admin if they really had any potential,' or similar thoughts. An additional concern is whether nominees brought forward by admins might be viewed through the lens of 'oh, the admins support them, so I should too.' We've seen this style of thinking broken on a few occasions, so this is a secondary concern of mine.

:::To back-track to your point on whether the comment period is essentially voting... it really isn't. Voting, as is currently implemented, goes through the list of posts made by users and adds up the number of {{t|VoteFor}} versus the number of {{t|VoteAgainst}} and determines the consensus based on the vote totals, augmented with the "strength of argument." In a lot of cases, this system works just fine for the needs of the wiki. However, sometimes there is a disagreement over whether an argument is well-suited for supporting the vote it accompanies, or whether a vote should be counted with more "weight" based proportionally on the strength of the argument that accompanies it. Commenting, on the other hand, allows a discourse to develop ''without focusing on how many "Supports" versus "Opposes" a candidate has.'' There is no counting and no question of 'strength of argument' because those concepts are completely absent from a consensus-based system, as I've outlined above. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]}''' 05:48, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

 

::::Oh and based on the concern that "if an admin thinks they're good enough then they must be", that can basically be seen as the fact that "admins ''are'' users too" is being thrown out the window. Like every other user on the wiki, admins are imperfect and they can make mistakes. Basically if the argument made by the nominator, administrator or not, is sound for the nominee to be considered for admin/bureaucrat then I don't see a problem with whoever nominates who.

 

I have been watching this forum for awhile now. I agree with Hana that there should '''only''' be one rfa at a time. It makes the page much tidier and neater and it would work better. I totally approve of the fifth point. It would also make the page tidier too. On my wiki we follow the same rule so that we can understand the requests because sometimes large sentences can be hard to understand. (well this is only my point of view) So to conclude my point of view I think that there should only be one rfa at a time. [[User:JasonThePlum|<font color="#87A96B">'''Jason034'''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:JasonThePlum|<font color="#B2BEB5">message wall</font>]] • [[User blog:JasonThePlum|<font color="#FF9966">blog</font>]]} 13:07, May 30, 2013 (UTC)